Support NeoGAF

[JackMcGunns]

Wow who in the CMA is on Sony's payroll?

They own stocks...


Just a guess, but this stuff needs to be investigated. Follow the money trail.

 

[lh032]

Microsoft is shaking now.

 

[GHG]

Still no attack on the actual tweet itself, just the man?

Maybe, just throwing out a guess here, the CMA isn't going to blindly accept the defence councils figures and MS is doing the least amount of effort in citing a supporting source. Microsoft isn't going to do the CMA's job for them. Let them find their own GHG certified impartiality industry source to corroborate or deny these figures, which everyone here already knows to be true.

If you can't see the problem with Microsoft needing to quote a journalist (who by the way previously founded a website called Winrumours which was a site dedicated to reporting news for Microsoft) in an official document addressed to regulators then I can't help you.

My opinion on this doesn't matter (and it shouldn't) with regard to the CMA's decision, nor should any "industry source" or their musings. They have all the data and information they need to be able to create models and make decisions.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Like I said, good luck.

 

[AJUMP23]

 

[Topher]

 

[GHG]

Already being discussed here:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/

 

[lh032]

Jokes aside, i dont think the regulators that stupid

 

[phil_t98]

Is your comprehension really so poor you can't even discern the argument I am making?

I'll rephrase, just for you.

The CMA will likely try to protect the market - and by extension the market leader - from any deals that could result in the market leader being replaced with a leader that will degrade the market.

protecting the market and then protecting the market leader. its creating a monopoly so nobody can touch Sony.

these games are currently 3rd party games and nobody has a right to say they should always be on a certain platform, just because you are the market leader does not give you automatic right to say a game should be on your system.

 

[Topher]

We had that same conversation the other day. Once Microsoft starts pulling in that PlayStation revenue it will be damn hard to let it go.

 

[Menzies]

If you can't see the problem with Microsoft needing to quote a journalist (who by the way previously founded a website called Winrumours which was a site dedicated to reporting news for Microsoft) in an official document addressed to regulators then I can't help you.

My opinion on this doesn't matter (and it shouldn't) with regard to the CMA's decision, nor should any "industry source" or their musings. They have all the data and information they need to be able to create models and make decisions.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Like I said, good luck.

And like I said, they're fully aware that they're going to do their own fact checks anyway. Let the CMA spend the next 6 months finding the most neutral unbiased gaming journalist who ever lived.

 

[reinking]

Problem really is that Sony can practically do whatever they want.

- buy developers while being able to block other companies doing the same.

-remove bad user reviews on MC while everyone else in the industry has to suck it up.

There's probably alot more but its from recent events.

This is an unprecedented purchase. Xbox fans can't have their cake and eat it too by bragging that this purchase is going to do major damage to Sony on one hand and then compare it to the purchase of a single dev studio on the other. Please stop with the woe-is-me crap. Both of these companies are big boys and know what is up. I am positive this deal will go through but we can't pretend that there are no consequences to letting one company take such a big slice of the market pie in one swoop. I wonder how many that are whining about this being reviewed by regulators would be just as happy if it was Facebook or Apple making this purchase? Or, if it was Sony? Just flip the usernames and we can see an alternate reality.

 

[GHG]

Jokes aside, i dont think the regulators that stupid

Based on the response to the CMA I refuse to believe Microsoft are either.

The fact that they are quoting Tom Warren tells me the primary purpose of this response is to rally the gaming community and journalists of his ilk so that the pressure is indirectly applied on the CMA via more public spaces.

But that's me giving them credit, because if not...

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

I don't really think Sony have a piggy bank anywhere near as big as Microsoft do... Compete seems to be a bit of a loose term here. Considering Microsoft are on an acquisition binge.

 

[Topher]

Problem really is that Sony can practically do whatever they want.

- buy developers while being able to block other companies doing the same.

-remove bad user reviews on MC while everyone else in the industry has to suck it up.

There's probably alot more but its from recent events.

 

[GHG]

And like I said, they're fully aware that they're going to do their own fact checks anyway. Let the CMA spend the next 6 months finding the most neutral unbiased gaming journalist who ever lived.

You think they are going to be looking for journalists when they have unlimited access to leadership across the industry and it's supporting bodies?

You can't be serious.

 

[Jormatar]

It will always be funny to me Microsoft had to spend 80 billion dollars to be able to compete with Sony. They always had the studios like Sony but they just couldn't make it work.

 

[adamsapple]

We had that same conversation the other day. Once Microsoft starts pulling in that PlayStation revenue it will be damn hard to let it go.

Yep. $$$ talks. If they needed to be petty, they would have stopped supporting Minecraft on PS platforms years ago.

 

[The_Mike]

This is an unprecedented purchase. Xbox fans can't have their cake and eat it too by bragging that this purchase is going to do major damage to Sony on one hand and then compare it to the purchase of a single dev studio on the other. Please stop with the woe-is-me crap. Both of these companies are big boys and know what is up. I am positive this deal will go through but we can't pretend that there are no consequences to letting one company take such a big slice of the market pie in one swoop. I wonder how many that are whining about this being reviewed by regulators would be just as happy if it was Facebook or Apple making this purchase? Or, if it was Sony? Just flip the usernames and we can see an alternate reality.

The only reason I am interested in this, is by seeing Activision Blizzard games on game pass. I couldnt care less if they become exclusive or not.

However, I am glad that Sony hasnt bought them, because that usually means you can only play them one place, and that is on Playstation, wheres with Microsoft you will always be able to at least play it on Xbox as well as PC. I know Playstation are opening more up on PC than previous, but it would serious be shit to see Call of Duty release years after theyve been released on Playstation.

 

[onesvenus]

You didn't get it. Every single person on the planet has the potential to be interested in something. Meaning every single person on the planet is a potential customer, even those who don't own phones yet. The differences are interests and barriers to those interests.

Not all phone users are interested in high quality gaming via console or streaming. The products and services they use shows their interest to be a potential customer, not simply what device they have. If they had a genuine interest they buy those gaming devices or services.

Subscribing to a streaming service or buying a console are those barriers which show they have an interest.

Not a lot of people have subscribed to a game streaming service on phones. A lot more have bought consoles like the Switch or PS. Calling every single phone owner out there "more potential customers" to Hellblade is a stretch when very few of them have legitimate interests in subscribing to a game streaming service (as is evident) all the while removing those who have shown legitimate interest and bought consoles like the Switch and PS.

You are completely missing the point of "potential". Of course barriers to entry are important but once you have a phone, the barrier of entry is much lower than buying a console thus making it much more possible.

Going back to the interests thing and bringing back the GoW example that you completely avoided, potential customers are all the users who have a PS console, it doesn't matter if they have only expressed interest in racing games until now.

 

[Topher]

Yep. $$$ talks. If they needed to be petty, they would have stopped supporting Minecraft on PS platforms years ago.

Not to mention the massive PR hit they would take by suddenly yanking COD off of PS. None of this is in Microsoft's interest. That is why MS is doubling down on their commitment to PS. I think CMA is doing its due diligence here and putting Microsoft through all the phases of their review, but in the end I think this will be approved.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

It will always be funny to me Microsoft had to spend 80 billion dollars to be able to compete with Sony. They always had the studios like Sony but they just couldn't make it work.

You mean they bought them, didn't give them chance and continued to buy.

 

[Menzies]

You think they are going to be looking for journalists when they have unlimited access to leadership across the industry and it's supporting bodies?

You can't be serious.

I mean journalists as sources.

So when they do eventually get round to this unlimited access of resources, what will they find that will outrageously dismiss the tweet?

Nothing right? So the biased journalist has the ability to write down facts.

 

[Azurro]

Acquire the industry = increased competitiveness? That's a funny way to describe it.

 

[phil_t98]

Acquire the industry = increased competitiveness? That's a funny way to describe it.

is acquiring Activision the industry then?

 

[Three]

You are completely missing the point of "potential". Of course barriers to entry are important but once you have a phone, the barrier of entry is much lower than buying a console thus making it much more possible.

Going back to the interests thing and bringing back the GoW example that you completely avoided, potential customers are all the users who have a PS console, it doesn't matter if they have only expressed interest in racing games until now.

Your GOW example only proves my point. GOW didn't sell 120M copies. Only a subset are interested. Your potential customers are those who have an actual interest in something. Otherwise every single person on the planet has the potential to be a customer but most aren't interested.

Most phone users don't have an interest in getting over the first barrier of getting a cloud subscription service let alone playing Hellblade. so removing those who had legitimate interest in the series and bought Hellblade 1 on Switch or PS and saying the potential customers is now larger on phones doesn't work. Simply owning a device doesn't make you a potential customer, your interests do. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

[johnjohn]

Jokes aside, i dont think the regulators that stupid

These are just the preliminary concerns, once the deal is looked at more closely it'll obviously go through.

 

[Infamy v1]

Jokes aside, i dont think the regulators that stupid

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

Sony is literally doing this right now, as we speak, and also as the market leader. Yet they're crying behind the scenes to the CMA that even if CoD is available on PlayStation that gamers may expect additional benefits on Xbox and therefore influence their console of choice.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[SportsFan581]

No lies detected in the quote included in the OP. LOL

Sony certainly has the capability and position to adapt to any market changes that might occur. It's not the industry or regulators job to help prop them up.

 

[Ansphn]

True arrogance from Microsoft. If all they have to say is that to get it passed, then they will monopolize gaming within this generation. Microsoft even said that its not done buying. Next is Ubisoft, and Take2.

So just buy everything up and everyone else has to innovate?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

There is a thread for this.......

 

[SportsFan581]

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

LOL. Sony: They had better not do what we've been doing, shouldn't be allowed if it is them.

 

[phil_t98]

True arrogance from Microsoft. If all they have to say is that to get it passed, then they will monopolize gaming within this generation. Microsoft even said that its not done buying. Next is Ubisoft, and Take2.

So just buy everything up and everyone else has to innovate?

also creating a monopoly by protecting Sony if this doesn't go through. Sony are the market leader and if people aint able to buy studios or publishers Sony will continue to dominate and nobody can touch them. simple as that

 

[Infamy v1]

True arrogance from Microsoft. If all they have to say is that to get it passed, then they will monopolize gaming within this generation. Microsoft even said that its not done buying. Next is Ubisoft, and Take2.

So just buy everything up and everyone else has to innovate?

I know I'm feeding the troll but, Game Pass was the innovation in response to shifting the gaming market. They're completely changing the landscape and Sony doesn't want the status quo changed, hence their opposition to cloud, Game Pass and losing CoD (which not only affects their revenue since they're so dependent on it but feeds Game Pass, so it's like taking two on the chin instead of one). Sony themselves said it would take many years and lots of money to be able to compete with XGP. Their words.

 

[SSfox]

 

[Topher]

True arrogance from Microsoft. If all they have to say is that to get it passed, then they will monopolize gaming within this generation. Microsoft even said that its not done buying. Next is Ubisoft, and Take2.

So just buy everything up and everyone else has to innovate?

Seems pretty obvious that any acquisition the size and scope of ABK is going to be under more scrutiny, not less.

also creating a monopoly by protecting Sony if this doesn't go through. Sony are the market leader and if people aint able to buy studios or publishers Sony will continue to dominate and nobody can touch them. simple as that

Sony will not be a monopoly either way. MS was able to acquire Zenimax without issue.

 

[Kiraly]

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

Now we all know what Jim Ryan meant when he said the deal proposed was "inadequate on many levels"

 

[phil_t98]

Your GOW example only proves my point. GOW didn't sell 120M copies. Only a subset are interested. Your potential customers are those who have an actual interest in something. Otherwise every single person on the planet has the potential to be a customer but most aren't interested.

Most phone users don't have an interest in getting over the first barrier of getting a cloud subscription service let alone playing Hellblade. so removing those who had legitimate interest in the series and bought Hellblade 1 on Switch or PS and saying the potential customers is now larger on phones doesn't work. Simply owning a device doesn't make you a potential customer, your interests do. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

God of war franchise has sold 51 million games which is an awesome amount

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Microsoft is shaking now.

Press x to doubt...CMA isn't going to be the sole regulator to reject the deal.

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

Sony is literally doing this right now, as we speak, and also as the market leader. Yet they're crying behind the scenes to the CMA that even if CoD is available on PlayStation that gamers may expect additional benefits on Xbox and therefore influence their console of choice.

You can't make this shit up.

So Sony is worried others may do the same they currently are? This is like if xbox didnt want sony to buy square cause adding their games to ps+ would make the competition unfair. Seems ridiculous.

 

[GHG]

I mean journalists as sources.

So when they do eventually get round to this unlimited access of resources, what will they find that will outrageously dismiss the tweet?

Nothing right? So the biased journalist has the ability to write down facts.

In case you are not aware this is the tweet they are both referencing and quoting in their official response:




See here:

Twitter is not a source. Opinions are not facts.

It's sad that I even need to say that but this is how we arrive at a place where people are willing to run with false narratives to such a degree that they've been willing to get banned here for it.

 

[phil_t98]

Seems pretty obvious that any acquisition the size and scope of ABK is going to be under more scrutiny, not less.



Sony will not be a monopoly either way. MS was able to acquire Zenimax without issue.

Sony will be a monopoly as nobody could gain enough to have a level playing field. its like financial fair play in football its protecting the bigger teams and keeping the smaller teams small.

 

[Spitfire098]

also creating a monopoly by protecting Sony if this doesn't go through. Sony are the market leader and if people aint able to buy studios or publishers Sony will continue to dominate and nobody can touch them. simple as that

Xbox can always adapt and compete if this deal doesn't go through.

 

[R6Rider]

Sony will be a monopoly as nobody could gain enough to have a level playing field. its like financial fair play in football its protecting the bigger teams and keeping the smaller teams small.

That's not what a monopoly is.

 

[Neofire]

Sony being able to "compete and adapt" in a global declining economy against a over one trillion dollar company that's buying up the largest developer in the industry? Okay Microsoft lol, Uncle Phil has the gift of the silver tongue I give him that. He definitely will piss on your head and tell you it's raining.

 

[Topher]

Sony will be a monopoly as nobody could gain enough to have a level playing field. its like financial fair play in football its protecting the bigger teams and keeping the smaller teams small.

That would mean Sony is a monopoly now and that is factually not true.

 

[Pelta88]

XBOX PR went from full confidence, with Phil Spencer boasting about the acquisition being the "Biggest thing he's ever done." to looking like

And using ultra Sycophant, Tom Warren, as a source in their submissions to the UK regulator.

 

[Rykan]

I truly feel that we are currently experiencing console wars, but in reverse.

Sony: "That new Xbox franchise, Call of Duty? It's in a league of its own. It's just that good. There is no way that Playstation can do anything to compete with that."

Microsoft: "No, no, even if every single Call of Duty player were to switch over to Xbox, Playstation would still be much larger than Xbox. We are THAT far behind. Also, they can adapt and compete. Have you seen their studios? Can't wait to see what they come up with next"

 

[mansoor1980]

not only will sony adapt , they will win.............YET AGAIN

 

[phil_t98]

That's not what a monopoly is.

A monopoly is a company that exists in a market with little to no competition and can therefore set its own terms and prices when facing consumers, making them highly profitable.

By stopping the deal it would empower Sony even more in the market and stifle the growth of a competitor

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

It will always be funny to me Microsoft had to spend 80 billion dollars to be able to compete with Sony. They always had the studios like Sony but they just couldn't make it work.

Well the 360 generation they competed and won. XBone generation was something of an outlier due to them shooting themselves in the foot prior. But the community backlash was so massive I think it lost them too much mind share so they pivoted. But I also dont think they just competing with sony, now that other trillion or close to trillion dollar companies are getting into the market its becoming the wild west of acquisitions.

 

[SlimySnake]

Yes it is just ONE title but no when it's THE title. Nearly half of the console owners play COD. It is an online title so their PS+ subs rely upon it. It brings to their eco system THE casual gamer that will then spend hundreds of dollars every generation. You remove CoD and they lose 30% of their playbase immediately, but that doesnt just affect console sales which are not profitable. It affects PS+ subs and third party sales which has a compound effect on first party sales and Sonys ability to produce AAA first party titles. Sony turns into Nintendo.

This is something I pointed out earlier this year and no one thought CoD alone could kill Sony, but lack of CoD will kill Sony as we know it today. The publisher that spends hundreds of millions on first party games is simply not going to have a playerbase to justify budgets like that and they will have to either become Nintendo and produce low quality hardware with fewer AAA exclusives than ever or simply turn third party like Sega.

I think the deal is going to go through and it should go through, but its asinine of MS to suggest that Sony's entire business model wont change by losing 30-50% of their userbase.